26

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, Marty, you wrote: M> I.e. an eye in an eye you put, and there to you digit from a matrix? And with a speed as? With a speed on a miscellaneous, but it is normal norms. There are decisions with the buffer - you look at the display and a frame (at you already is. Besides focus peaking it is very convenient for focusing control.

27

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, sambl4, you wrote: SVZ>> the Fast auto focus. Not all  have a phase focusing. S> it is not necessary to take simple where it is not present So are conducted on the price, for a label, for appearance and when bought, missed, and focusing by contrast. The same Watering cans - the price from 4.5K $ for such price fight which shoots bull-calves at passers-by should be applied, and phase focusing is not present. SVZ>> the Long-playing battery. S> it yes. But it is possible and to buy in addition. 2 batteries on Sony Nex sufficed me always. Under the passport at  batteries suffice on 300, in real - pieces 500 it is possible to finish shooting. At  1000-1200 frames without a pressure. We tell, for 12 wedding shooting shoot approximately 2000-3000 frames (some manage on 4000). Per day for DSLR 2 spare batteries sufficed. Now, if to remove any children's morning performance on  in an hour of shooting of a half-battery it is eaten. And in holiday I in a store drag one battery for , on pair-triple days suffices. SVZ>> When you remove the big size of the camera has the pluses much - to hold conveniently,  the good. S> looking how to remove. The people buy  and then to it already  to drag with itself convenient  with good  - are simply too heavy. Yes, the tendency already was outlined, more and more to the people creeps on , even among . Sports and the nature, probably, still for a long time remain on , but there optics specific. And   any will be differently more bright .

28

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, Tyomchik, you wrote: SVZ>>   any will be differently more bright . Those> Are versions A7 with phase focus, including with very fast focusing. Looked, really, write that focusing sensors in 6 and more times more, than at Edinichki. Truth that means it in practice - . Those> the Ambush as I already specified - a lens with the big hole on FE mount there are in 5 times more expensively lenses with the similar aperture on Kenon. I.e. pluses and choice - minuses to overpay or swing hands. Here you slightly embellish. Not in 5 times, and less, than in 2. We tell, 70-200/2.8 with the stabilizator 230 (sleepyheads) against 143 (Canon). But here  that for  a bayonet joint the heap of optics of indirect vendors which are much cheaper is issued and is not always worse. And here for the aunt of the Sleepyhead something nobody is put, probably the patent oxygen superimposed. Yes, and about "FE mount". . The Bayonet joint is called simply "", and "FE" - lenses for  cameras.

29

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, Tyomchik, you wrote: Those> Here on f/1.4 to glasses Those> 1445 USD - Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA Those> https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F14Z-D … 4+distagon Those> 330 USD - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Those> https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-M … B00009XVCZ 35 to compare Taki with 50 . We take yours  (or here) for 130 and it is comparable with similar CANON EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM for 133. ! In general an example not so successful, any glasses at Sonki are more expensive almost twice, we tell budgetary 50/1.8. And any - are comparable at the price. But I do not think that here the manufacturing techniques play a role, marketing is faster.

30

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, paucity, you wrote: P> Actually, subj. P> That think, colleagues? Mirrorless

31

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, indee, you wrote: I> Mirrorless why?

32

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, paucity, you wrote: P> Hello, indee, you wrote: I>> Mirrorless P> P> why? The answer consists in the total which the author of a post is ready to pay for the camera. Now, though,  and is more expensive than the colleagues, but it is really wonderful technics, in all aspects. I do not want to argue or , there is no sense... mirrorless, it is evolution to what the photoindustry moves. That is important for the modern camera and qualitative pictures: , the photosensitive element (matrix) and electronics which controls it. And the mirror, this simply constructional decision in which canikon put the large totals as lost  the market warming up obvious disputes. At first, I as the person of "old school" was skeptical to , yes, spent, many resources on  light,  and bright optics for a mirror, but progress not  on a place... Hasselblad and that leaves in . P.S. Recently watched of operation of one photographer which removes the wooden camera on glass plates. On one picture 5-7 minutes, the whole luggage carrier of "arms" leave, the wife  accurately submits "" and carries away "shot".

33

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, indee, you wrote: I> Recently watched of operation of one photographer which removes the wooden camera on glass plates. Plates are not present, and here on a film I occasionally miss

34

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

P> That think, colleagues? On Nikon D750  good discounts in the nearest photographic supplies store. How the device? It is necessary to take?

35

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: SVZ> Fudzhik Tell, , from the experience. Whether exposure removal, ISO and exposure corrections on individual  is justified?

36

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, Mihas, you wrote: SVZ>> Fudzhik M> Tell, , from the experience. Whether exposure removal, ISO and exposure corrections on individual  is justified? It is convenient. Can it is not too healthy from the point of view of rate of fire (in comparison with  ), but it is much more convenient, than on DSLR initial level. On "type amateur"   and  are dug in the menu - not at once you will find. On the ABM - versions it is carried out on separate wheels under a principal hand, type without coming off an eyepiece you can adjust at once all (if you remember what to twist). But there are nuances to Take the same canon 5 (very first). To change  it is necessary at first  descent. Then you have a second-two to twist , then the mode is ungeared - not the most convenient variant. And not to forget to remove yet lock, differently a wheel it is twisted empty. And here all before eyes, and in the view-finder the information is doubled. All additional  are programmed - pair   (on the back panel and in front), the joystick, buttons. It is possible to adjust under itself somehow. Well and surroundings it is not necessary to forget. Looks naturally as the old film camera, especially in silvery execution. Nostalgia

37

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: SVZ> Hello, Mihas, you wrote: SVZ>>> Fudzhik M>> Tell, , from the experience. Whether exposure removal, ISO and exposure corrections on individual  is justified? SVZ> On "type amateur"   and  are dug in the menu - not at once you will find. It agree. SVZ> It is convenient. Can it is not too healthy from the point of view of rate of fire (in comparison with  ), but it is much more convenient, than on DSLR initial level. SVZ> on the ABM - versions it is carried out on separate wheels under a principal hand... I just about it. On considered , as well as on the ABM-zerkalkah there are available two wheels under a principal hand. It would Seem, enough for operative change of parameters of an exposure. Nevertheless, whole three target . Therefore also a question to the owner of the device: really conveniently or the surroundings heats soul?

38

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, Mihas, you wrote: M> On considered , as well as on the ABM-zerkalkah there are available two wheels under a principal hand. It would Seem, enough for operative change of parameters of an exposure. Nevertheless, whole three target . Therefore also a question to the owner of the device: really conveniently or the surroundings heats soul? Personally it is convenient me. It is not necessary to hold in a head a heap , as the camera not the unique. The second wheel (which in front) at me is not involved till now. Though there it is possible to hang  functions. Here only storage not rubber without coming off the view-finder I change only a diaphragm (the left hand on a lens) and  (an appropriate wheel). On "five-copeck coin", by the way, periodically forgot, what wheel that changes. I hate  (vim - suxx, nano - rulez).

39

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: M>> On considered , On it truth is not present the built in flashout?

40

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

41

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, sambl4, you wrote: P>> That think, colleagues? S> and what pluses at DSLR are now? And what pluses at  if to leave with the fairy tale side about them ostensibly the smaller size?

42

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, jhfrek, you wrote: J> and what pluses at  if to leave with the fairy tale side about them ostensibly the smaller size? Live View, but it now is and at . Basically it is possible to implement any construction of a lock (including electronic), besides  and to solve a problem of synchronization with . More pluses I can not invent

43

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

44

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: J>> and what pluses at  if to leave with the fairy tale side about them ostensibly the smaller size? SVZ> Live View, but it now is and at . It agree. It is principal plus - at  it is implemented through, in comparison with the Sleepyhead. Engineers  and  should tear off hands for convenience of the interface.

45

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, jhfrek, you wrote: J>>> and what pluses at  if to leave with the fairy tale side about them ostensibly the smaller size? SVZ>> Live View, but it now is and at . J> it agree. It is principal plus - at  it is implemented through, in comparison with the Sleepyhead. Engineers  and  should tear off hands for convenience of the interface. On  it is necessary to dodge by means of a translucent mirror - here not to fat. Probably it is possible to lift a mirror, but then the view-finder in a minus.

46

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: SVZ>>> Live View, but it now is and at . J>> it agree. It is principal plus - at  it is implemented through, in comparison with the Sleepyhead. Engineers  and  should tear off hands for convenience of the interface. SVZ> on  it is necessary to dodge by means of a translucent mirror - here not to fat. SVZ> probably it is possible to lift a mirror So it and so rises at live view. SVZ> but then the view-finder in a minus. And what for it simultaneously with live view?

47

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

48

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

49

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, jhfrek, you wrote: SD>> And what relation the price exposed by the vendor to what I wrote has? SD>>>> is more expensive - but not because it is more difficult. J> that is, actually, these lenses stand copecks and the price are dictated by greed - at the sleepyhead it more... Poor laws of physics... It is possible for me, to a teapot, on fingers to tell, in what a dirty trick? While I see that distinctions practically are not present, constructions are similar, both for  cameras (and if the sizes of a matrix are identical also optical circuits will be very similar). Besides, the Sleepyhead a bicycle did not invent, and bought Minoltu with all giblets, and  the technics did not cost . By the way, on smart phones physics laws (I about the price too operate at identical with competitors )? Or it is simple laurels Eppl do not allow to sleep? About greed thought correct, I support.

50

Re: New : DSLR or Mirrorless?

Hello, V. Zudin, you wrote: J>> that is, actually, these lenses stand copecks and the price are dictated by greed - at the sleepyhead it more... Poor laws of physics... SVZ> It is possible for me, to a teapot, on fingers to tell, in what a dirty trick? In that that you invented that I tell that at  a lens more expensively. I speak that both of them expensive because for  the big diameter  is necessary, and qualitative glasses of the big diameter are equally expensive in manufacture. And that that the working segment at  more shortly practically in any way does not reduce the price. SVZ> while I see that distinctions practically are not present, constructions are similar, both for  cameras (and if the sizes of a matrix are identical also optical circuits will be very similar). The scoring in sizes and the price is actual for  cameras, and besides  mirror or .